Stop Political Correctness for the Right Reasons

In the wake of NPR firing Juan Williams, Michael Moore wrote him an open letter, acknowledging that his comments about Muslims, terrorism and political correctness weren’t grounds for dismissal. He stopped far short of giving him a pass however, briefly jabbing him on his motivation to contribute to Fox. He then looked beyond NPR’s judgment, examining half-truths and distortions in statements Williams made about Faisal Shahzad and the motivations of terrorists. He concluded with a challenge for Williams to use his new deal with Fox to invite Moore on for “in-depth discussions about the terrorists' real motivations.” Moore made a compelling argument both in defense of Williams’ call to speak plainly about terrorism, but also to take that opportunity to tell the truth.

Michael Moore used ethos in demonstrating his moral character by insisting that Juan Williams use his newly-attained position with Fox to finally allow the truth to be heard about why terrorists do what they do. The American people value the truth over fabrications and posturing on such issues and the article clearly called Williams’ bluff. This prompts readers to pay closer attention to his rhetoric as he starts contributing to Fox exclusively. 

Regardless of the political affiliation of the readers, the article uses pathos to tap into frustration over the whole firing/censorship debacle. Conservatives would be drawn in with Moore calling NPR out on their decision, and Liberals would laud the call for a discussion about what really drives people to extremism. Moore’s sense of urgency became evident in his phrasing, suggesting that Juan hasn’t gone “far enough”, and that he should join him on a “mission” to inform people of the truth. 

He also employed logos to make his case, citing quotes of Shahzad from various sources which contrast with William’s account. The inconsistencies are stark, showing misinterpretation of Shahzad’s motives at best and divisive propaganda at worst. This is the most effective argument for the honest political discussion about the issue that Moore is referring to.

In both his defense and criticism of Williams, Michael Moore gave a provocative, effective call to action to inform citizens of what’s really behind the terrorist threat. The article attempted to take the problem of the media’s overreaction and lack of discourse and turn it into a positive dialogue; One that will inform citizens instead of play to their fears and further confuse them with contradictions.

Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/juan-williams-is-right-po_b_772766.html

Five Years Left for the Paper Book?

In class this week, we did an exercise on defining the logos appeal in the analysis of an argument. I found a CNN article this evening on the replacement of the traditional paper book with the eBook.  It continues to be a fascinating and divisive subject, so I thought it would be interesting to determine the argument’s effectiveness. 

Nicolas Negroponte, founder of One Laptop per Child, frames the argument in terms of efficiency. He suggests that it would be impractical to provide books for nearly 500,000 people in parts of Africa. Then, he notes the advantage of eBooks to easily multiply 100 books into 100,000 versus having to print each of them separately. This is a very effective, pragmatic point. Having a preference for the experience of owning and reading a physical book is one thing, but that use case simply does not support the education of such large a population of people with limited time and financial resources. 

Negroponte also measures the global reach of eBooks by its establishment as a standard form of reading material and educational tool. He turns assumptions about development on their heads, suggesting that developing countries are actually adopting the eBook at a faster rate than developed nations like the United States. He rationalizes this claim by comparing it with the assimilation of cell phones. This makes perfect sense, as it is usually much easier to teach people a skill or how to use a tool for the first time than to recondition them; as was the case with land-line to wireless phone usage in the US and other first world countries.

Technological innovation is our future. The eBook is outpacing the physical book just as the printed word did handwritten one. Now that’s not to say that books will be completely obsolete in the foreseeable future; but the article does make a strong case for the inevitability of the eBook taking its place.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/10/17/negroponte.ebooks/index.html?hpt=T2

Analyzing the Rhetoric

This week in English class, we discussed rhetorical analysis and how rhetoric is used to persuade an audience. After a week of high profile drama about the housing crisis in the news, I found a McClatchy article by Greg Gordon about the former Secretary of the Treasury and how his action (or inaction in this case) helped Goldman Sachs instead of millions of people facing foreclosure. With all the confusion the American public is facing over this issue, I thought it was a great subject to pull apart and examine.

A major part of the discussion in class was about the use of “proofs” used to persuade the audience. There was evidence of those proofs - ethos, pathos, and logos early on in the article. Various credible sources are used as ethos to shed light on the decisions made by the Secretary and the Fed Chairman, among others. Gordon uses accounts from different sources, including FBI director Chris Swecker, mortgage broker Michael Blomquist, and former senior thrift regulator William Black; who testified before Congress and the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission on the subject.  Black gives a scathing critique of the Secretary, citing his years of experience as an executive at Goldman, the same company that helped create the dysfunction in the market, and stood to gain the most as nearly everyone else reaped the consequences. It even uses a list created by regulators of the actions that could have been taken to hedge against the bad loans that were created to fuel the crisis.

The vast majority of Americans are still outraged and cynical about the government’s role in allowing the housing bubble to grow and burst. Gordon uses pathos to tap into those very emotions, referring to Secretary Paulson’s or the government’s “failure” to act or help stabilize the crisis. Failure is used repeatedly, and implies that the administration directly or indirectly allowed much of the financial fallout.

Gordon used “logos” or compiled logical reasoning to drive home the point about the ties between the Treasury Secretary and Goldman Sachs. He noted that not only did inaction against mortgage fail to stop the housing sector; it kept money going to that bank, and several others on Wall Street. He backtracked through the events, following Paulson’s lingering ties to Goldman, even after leaving as an executive. He tied this to the fact that Paulson should have and almost certainly knew about the bank’s practices and how they posed an existential threat to the financial system as a whole.

The article was very insightful and eye-opening, calling greater attention to the mistakes that were made and the opportunities missed to avoid the great recession. Although some politicians went out of their way shift the blame to other parties, this article is very compelling and raises serious questions about the Treasury, the banks, and the Federal Reserve.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/10/101753/inaction-by-treasurys-paulson.html